Cartels Have Settled 80 Miles Inside the U.S. Border on Public Lands


We are losing our sovereignty by erasing our borders and ceding U.S. land to cartels. Big Government is not protecting our borders and has made it extremely difficult for Border Patrol to pursue cartels settled on public lands.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview that no one has operational control of desert areas of Arizona 70 miles within the border.

Utah Rep. Rob Bishop has said it’s 80 miles.


Babeu took a helicopter tour of drug cartel areas in Arizona this week with Dr. Ben Carson who is a GOP candidate for president of the United States.

Dr. Carson concluded after the visit that the wall won’t do, we need ARMED drones in the area.

They toured the many scout sites where cartel operatives serve as lookouts for human and drug smugglers and other contraband.

“If they can operate up to this degree, 70 miles north of the border, in law enforcement we call that a clue,” Babeu said in a brief exclusive interview outside the helicopter after landing back at the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office. The lack of United States sovereignty this deep into the country is highly concerning to Carson.

“We should stop them at the border,” Carson said. “They shouldn’t be 70 miles inside the border. We should stop them at the border. As the sheriff indicated, if we were to take like 6,000 troops and put them at the border, you wouldn’t have those people coming inside the border.”

Our sovereignty and our borders are erased for hundreds or thousands of square miles.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. Cartels are active in the border states and in our cities and it has been going on for years.

When the government watchdog agency Judicial Watch reported there were ISIS camps in Mexico within 8 miles of El Paso, they also noted that ISIS “spotters” were seen in the East Potrillo Mountains of New Mexico which is under control of The Bureau of Land Management [BLM].

The Bureau of Land Management can’t control cartel activity on their lands and won’t let Border Patrol in without lengthy bureaucratic hassles.

There are parts of BLM land that is “wild” and the Border Patrol is not allowed on it nor is surveillance equipment easily erected, which, ironically, allows cartels and terrorists free rein. If agents are in pursuit, they can only go into Wilderness areas on foot. Cartels are aware of these restrictions.

Clips from one of Rep. Bishop’s detailed presentations on cartel-controlled federal lands [full video at the end of the post].

Rep. Rob Bishop tried to get legislation passed in 2012 that would help stop cartels from using federal lands. The House passed it but the White House opposed it.

There are extensive areas – within the U.S. – that have warning signs about illegal criminal activity and they are put up by our government. These are U.S. protected lands and parks that are too dangerous for American citizens unless touring with an armed guard.



Transnational cartels have been operating 80 miles within Arizona’s border for years. The following is a presentation by the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers. Border patrol cannot cover large swaths of land along the border because they don’t have access thanks to the environmental restrictions in Wilderness areas.

More than 80% of the wildfires on public lands are caused by illegal aliens. They often set fires to distract Border Patrol while they flee.

Full video with Congressman Bishop and another expert.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
6 years ago

” Big Government is not protecting our borders and has made it extremely difficult for Border Patrol to pursue cartels settled on public lands.”

It is NOT the duty of those that serve within our government to protect our borders. That duty is constitutionally assigned to the “organized” (trained as the US Military is trained) Militias.

Constitution of the United States of America, Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Notice the word “necessary” within that Amendment, that is the ONLY thing the founders felt was necessary within the US Constitution for us to maintain our freedom, our Constitutional Republic.

Each state’s Militia is made up of “We the People” protecting our own interests, homes, states, nation, and enforcing our governments. The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:

— Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
— Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
— Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
— “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

The US Constitution guarantees to each state its own “Republican form of government”. It is every state’s Militia that is the ONLY Constitutionally assigned force to “counter Invasions” and “Domestic Violence” within our nation. Both those who serve within our general (federal) and within our state governments are constitutionally REQUIRED to use the Militia before anything else, and they were forbidden to create governmental professional law enforcement. Plus the ONLY crimes assigned to those that serve within the general (federal) government listed within the US Constitution for law enforcement purposes are Treason, Piracy, Counterfeiting, and International law violations.

Notice who is supposed to be called for those enforcement purposes, and it is NOT a governmental professional law enforcement, nor the military.

Also notice that this is within the First Article within the US Constitution.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.”

Remember that ALL laws/regulations/treaties MUST be in “Pursuance thereof” the US Constitution to be lawful within THIS nation.

This clause is very straightforward. The militia of each state is entrusted with the defense of the USA and her people, not just with the defense of their state; and they are to be armed with weapons that can repel any invasions bearing modern weapons of war. Congress is required to provide those military grade weapons for the militias in Clause 16; NOT to sell, give, trade, etc those military weapons to any foreign nation, foreign entity, foreign terrorist/rebel, nor are those military weapons to go to any governmental professional law enforcement agency. In the US Constitution when a thing is assigned to one, it is forbidden to anything/one else.

Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

It is important to also note that US Constitution, Article I, Section. 8, Clause 11: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”.

This refers to using private citizens in their own privately owned crafts to defend the USA and her people, this is using the Militia. You see, the idea was that as long as arms was in then hands of the people and NOT under the control of those who serve within our governments that a “police” state, or being taken over by a unlawful military that is supposed to be called up when needed could ever happen here within the USA. A “standing” military is a “permanent” military, and that also was forbidden to those who serve within our governments.

James Madison, Father of the US Constitution: “… large and permanent military establishments … are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.”

Samuel Adams: “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them..”

Joel Barlow, Revolutionary War veteran, wrote “Advice to the Privileged Orders, in the Several States of Europe”, clergyman, theologian, popular poet, successful diplomat, and American whose political writings were debated on the floor of Parliament said of the US Constitution: “… not only permitting every man to arm, but obliging him to arm.”

Daniel Webster: “Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly and wickedness of the government may engage itself? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest right of personal liberty? Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life, itself, whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it?”

Patrick Henry: “If you have given up your militia, and Congress shall refuse to arm them, you have lost every thing. Your existence will be precarious, because you depend on others, whose interests are not affected by your infelicity.”

Justice Story, Associate Justice, Supreme Court wrote: “The next amendment is: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them”.

John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475: “… The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”

Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers 28: “The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; [when called into actual service] a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call.”

You might find it interesting that Joseph Stalin remarked in 1933 that: ”The United States should get rid of its militias”.

It is also important to note that the Bill of Rights is an area that was put into writing to make sure that it is NEVER forgotten that there were certain things NOT delegated to those who serve within our governments. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights makes that very clear.

Preamble to the Bill of Rights: “Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, IN ORDER TO PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, that FURTHER declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution …”

There is no such thing as “emergency powers”, nor is there a such thing as “martial law”, LAWFULLY here within the USA.

Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 425 (1934): “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are not altered by emergency.”

The Supreme Court of the United States, 1866 (we have NOT changed that, and those that serve within our governments do not have the lawful authority to do so): “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.”

Cockrum v. State: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power”

Bliss v. Commonwealth: “Arms restrictions – even concealed weapons bans – are unconstitutional, since arms bearing is an individual right and the legislature may not restrict any aspect of such a right.”

Nunn vs. State: ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right”.

South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia that urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate: ““When an Army is sent to enforce Laws, it is always an Evidence that either the Law makers are conscious that they had no clear and indisputable right to make those Laws, or that they are bad [and] oppressive. Wherever the People themselves have had a hand in making Laws, according to the first principles of our Constitution there is no danger of Nonsubmission, Nor can there be need of an Army to enforce them.”

What it comes down to is that the PEOPLE must learn and enforce the US Constitution (Supreme LAW of our nation that all laws MUST be in Pursuance thereof to be lawful here), and each state’s Constitution (Highest LAW of that state except where it conflicts with the US Constitution) and both are the contracts that all who serve within our governments are under, made stronger as contracts because all take the required Oath that they know and understand their duties.